(11-18-2014 06:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:16 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virignia

Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

If I could improve on that (and if GoR aren't an issue to be tackled), I could make it like this:

Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVa, Notre Dame
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Connecticut, Michigan State
Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Georgia Tech and Notre Dame have a history of playing together. The Domers would have a division of southeastern schools to themselves. Michigan State is the toughest part to figure out. I just can't find a way to separate Ohio State and Michigan without screwing up things elsewhere.

Connecticut over Syracuse comes down to Connecticut having a greater upside as a state flagship school with major inversions from the state for STEM research. It has recently opened a genome laboratory, which promises to accelerate new discoveries in the medical field. Syracuse and Pitt are fine schools but the impression I get from other Big Ten fans (except for H1) is they'd prefer UConn over them.

I think cooperation with the Big 10 just might end at the North Carolina border. Not that we love Georgia Tech, but that North Carolina would be as far South as we would feel comfortable with having the Big 10. I doubt the Big 10 would love for the SEC to enter Pittsburgh, Ohio, and Iowa.

IF that was to happen then I agree, GT wont be coming North because of what it would do to them. I highly doubt I am the only Big Ten fan that prefers Syracuse to UConn. It's not like their is a huge difference but there is a difference. Syracuse is tops in two sports that the Big Ten now likes. Basketball and....wait for it....Lacrosse. Syracuse does have a long history with both Penn State and Rutgers.

Secondly, I don't think the ACC will lose any schools BUT if somehow ESPN was able to talk them into it, that scenario of yours is interesting JR. I definitely think the SEC would be much quicker to say yes to VT and NC State than they would be to Oklahoma State and WVU/ECU. So I will give you that one.

You want models?
Realignment could be over with one move.........one. Then we are done except for the butt-hurt of those that have to move (back).

The 4 conference model:
The SEC absorbs the Big 12. The entire Big 12, but continues to market under two different names (regionalism sells).

SEC #1
LSU
Miss. State
Alabama
Vandy
Tennessee
Kentucky

SEC #2
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ole Miss
Kentucky

Big 12 North
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri

Big 12 South
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Texas A & M

The LHN becomes the Big 12 network and is marketed along side of the SECN as a package.
The PAC remains the same
The B1G remains the same
The ACC remains the same

One move BOOM!

(11-18-2014 12:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  You want models?
Realignment could be over with one move.........one. Then we are done except for the butt-hurt of those that have to move (back).

The 4 conference model:
The SEC absorbs the Big 12. The entire Big 12, but continues to market under two different names (regionalism sells).

SEC #1
LSU
Miss. State
Alabama
Vandy
Tennessee
Kentucky

SEC #2
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ole Miss
Kentucky

Big 12 North
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri

Big 12 South
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Texas A & M

The LHN becomes the Big 12 network and is marketed along side of the SECN as a package.
The PAC remains the same
The B1G remains the same
The ACC remains the same

One move BOOM!

Nah! Too many Texas schools.

(11-18-2014 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  You want models?
Realignment could be over with one move.........one. Then we are done except for the butt-hurt of those that have to move (back).

The 4 conference model:
The SEC absorbs the Big 12. The entire Big 12, but continues to market under two different names (regionalism sells).

SEC #1
LSU
Miss. State
Alabama
Vandy
Tennessee
Kentucky

SEC #2
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ole Miss
Kentucky

Big 12 North
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri

Big 12 South
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Texas A & M

The LHN becomes the Big 12 network and is marketed along side of the SECN as a package.
The PAC remains the same
The B1G remains the same
The ACC remains the same

One move BOOM!

Nah! Too many Texas schools.

You missed the most important part.....REGIONALISM SELLS!!

(11-18-2014 02:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  You want models?
Realignment could be over with one move.........one. Then we are done except for the butt-hurt of those that have to move (back).

The 4 conference model:
The SEC absorbs the Big 12. The entire Big 12, but continues to market under two different names (regionalism sells).

SEC #1
LSU
Miss. State
Alabama
Vandy
Tennessee
Kentucky

SEC #2
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ole Miss
Kentucky

Big 12 North
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri

Big 12 South
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Texas A & M

The LHN becomes the Big 12 network and is marketed along side of the SECN as a package.
The PAC remains the same
The B1G remains the same
The ACC remains the same

One move BOOM!

Nah! Too many Texas schools.

You missed the most important part.....REGIONALISM SELLS!!

No I didn't miss it. It does sell. But Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech actually cover the state quite well. I like Baylor, and have nothing against T.C.U., but 3 Texas State schools is enough schools with which to split the revenue. I feel the same way about North Carolina. North Carolina, N.C. State and Duke are plenty. One reason the Big 12 and ACC are in the positions that they are is because of too much concentration within their regions. Two schools per state is considered a stretch, but one that I actually like for the purposes of market saturation. Three is a push anywhere in the Southeast except Texas (really Southwest), Florida, and North Carolina. But more than three anywhere is unnecessary baggage from a business standpoint. The merger of the Big 12 and SEC yields 5 Texas schools.

Eventually the networks are going to switch models on us. We will move from a market footprint model which cable carriage supports to a saturation model which a la carte or streaming will bring about. When we do make that move the SEC will have been remiss in not having more Florida schools and Texas schools. But even then Wake Forest will not make enough of an impact to be worth the ACC having 4 in North Carolina, or the Big 12 having 40% of their entire conference in Texas and 60% in the two states of Texas and Oklahoma. Add Kansas and 80% of their schools are from 3 states. No conference can exist with that kind of concentration. They of all conferences need footprint size, or merger, or dissolution. The ACC needs to simply energize its existing markets, but that remains an unresolved issue because of product in football.

(11-18-2014 06:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:16 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virignia

Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

If I could improve on that (and if GoR aren't an issue to be tackled), I could make it like this:

Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVa, Notre Dame
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Connecticut, Michigan State
Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Georgia Tech and Notre Dame have a history of playing together. The Domers would have a division of southeastern schools to themselves. Michigan State is the toughest part to figure out. I just can't find a way to separate Ohio State and Michigan without screwing up things elsewhere.

Connecticut over Syracuse comes down to Connecticut having a greater upside as a state flagship school with major inversions from the state for STEM research. It has recently opened a genome laboratory, which promises to accelerate new discoveries in the medical field. Syracuse and Pitt are fine schools but the impression I get from other Big Ten fans (except for H1) is they'd prefer UConn over them.

I think cooperation with the Big 10 just might end at the North Carolina border. Not that we love Georgia Tech, but that North Carolina would be as far South as we would feel comfortable with having the Big 10. I doubt the Big 10 would love for the SEC to enter Pittsburgh, Ohio, and Iowa.

OK. I'll go along with your suggestion, then. So I'll just use your idea and change it up a bit:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Boston College, Penn State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin


Ohio State and Michigan just want to occasionally play in the East but not shift focus too much away from their conference roots. So that leaves Michigan State as the outlier.

(11-18-2014 02:52 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:16 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virignia

Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

If I could improve on that (and if GoR aren't an issue to be tackled), I could make it like this:

Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVa, Notre Dame
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Connecticut, Michigan State
Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Georgia Tech and Notre Dame have a history of playing together. The Domers would have a division of southeastern schools to themselves. Michigan State is the toughest part to figure out. I just can't find a way to separate Ohio State and Michigan without screwing up things elsewhere.

Connecticut over Syracuse comes down to Connecticut having a greater upside as a state flagship school with major inversions from the state for STEM research. It has recently opened a genome laboratory, which promises to accelerate new discoveries in the medical field. Syracuse and Pitt are fine schools but the impression I get from other Big Ten fans (except for H1) is they'd prefer UConn over them.

I think cooperation with the Big 10 just might end at the North Carolina border. Not that we love Georgia Tech, but that North Carolina would be as far South as we would feel comfortable with having the Big 10. I doubt the Big 10 would love for the SEC to enter Pittsburgh, Ohio, and Iowa.

OK. I'll go along with your suggestion, then. So I'll just use your idea and change it up a bit:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Boston College, Penn State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin


Ohio State and Michigan just want to occasionally play in the East but not shift focus too much away from their conference roots. So that leaves Michigan State as the outlier.

Yeah, I don't pretend to know how best to arrange the Big 10, but the schools listed were all evaluated by networks as being the most valuable to them. And, I do believe that we eventually want some consolidation of our conferences. It will be the best defense against a shift in TV delivery systems. Right now pursuing increased markets, but with significant consolidation within those markets seems the safest compromise to me.

(11-18-2014 03:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 02:52 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:16 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virignia

Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

If I could improve on that (and if GoR aren't an issue to be tackled), I could make it like this:

Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, UVa, Notre Dame
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Connecticut, Michigan State
Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Georgia Tech and Notre Dame have a history of playing together. The Domers would have a division of southeastern schools to themselves. Michigan State is the toughest part to figure out. I just can't find a way to separate Ohio State and Michigan without screwing up things elsewhere.

Connecticut over Syracuse comes down to Connecticut having a greater upside as a state flagship school with major inversions from the state for STEM research. It has recently opened a genome laboratory, which promises to accelerate new discoveries in the medical field. Syracuse and Pitt are fine schools but the impression I get from other Big Ten fans (except for H1) is they'd prefer UConn over them.

I think cooperation with the Big 10 just might end at the North Carolina border. Not that we love Georgia Tech, but that North Carolina would be as far South as we would feel comfortable with having the Big 10. I doubt the Big 10 would love for the SEC to enter Pittsburgh, Ohio, and Iowa.

OK. I'll go along with your suggestion, then. So I'll just use your idea and change it up a bit:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Boston College, Penn State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin


Ohio State and Michigan just want to occasionally play in the East but not shift focus too much away from their conference roots. So that leaves Michigan State as the outlier.

Yeah, I don't pretend to know how best to arrange the Big 10, but the schools listed were all evaluated by networks as being the most valuable to them. And, I do believe that we eventually want some consolidation of our conferences. It will be the best defense against a shift in TV delivery systems. Right now pursuing increased markets, but with significant consolidation within those markets seems the safest compromise to me.

Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois

Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern

Michigan State, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College

North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Maryland, Penn State



Well, I guess I will take a shot as the "resident expert".

This is not me saying I am wholeheartedly supporting this scenario because it involves the ACC being eaten up but IF this was the one, this is how I would do it.

Four games in division, two games against each other division with a ten game conference schedule. With this line up, I definitely think the Big Ten goes with another game. There are old relationships that would need to be maintained.

As you might have perceived, I placed Rutgers and Penn State strangely in those lists of five. I originally had PSU where Rutgers is but I think Penn State is looking forward. I think they want the rivalry with Maryland and they would want to be perceived in comparison with the likes of UNC, UVA and Maryland. Truthfully though, in the end it was about historical brands being evened out. Penn State in the other division made it a bit heavy having ND, MSU and PSU all in one division while the other would have been light. So PSU gets the southern pipeline and Rutgers has to make due with only getting to play Penn State once every 2.5 years. That is unless special rules allow for cross rivals thus making a team play every other team in the other divisions once every four years. I think that is a bit hard to swallow for the Core Big Ten teams that make up the entirety of the first two divisions that I listed, with the exception of Nebraska of course.

(11-18-2014 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 02:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  You want models?
Realignment could be over with one move.........one. Then we are done except for the butt-hurt of those that have to move (back).

The 4 conference model:
The SEC absorbs the Big 12. The entire Big 12, but continues to market under two different names (regionalism sells).

SEC #1
LSU
Miss. State
Alabama
Vandy
Tennessee
Kentucky

SEC #2
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ole Miss
Kentucky

Big 12 North
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri

Big 12 South
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Texas A & M

The LHN becomes the Big 12 network and is marketed along side of the SECN as a package.
The PAC remains the same
The B1G remains the same
The ACC remains the same

One move BOOM!

Nah! Too many Texas schools.

You missed the most important part.....REGIONALISM SELLS!!

No I didn't miss it. It does sell. But Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech actually cover the state quite well. I like Baylor, and have nothing against T.C.U., but 3 Texas State schools is enough schools with which to split the revenue. I feel the same way about North Carolina. North Carolina, N.C. State and Duke are plenty. One reason the Big 12 and ACC are in the positions that they are is because of too much concentration within their regions. Two schools per state is considered a stretch, but one that I actually like for the purposes of market saturation. Three is a push anywhere in the Southeast except Texas (really Southwest), Florida, and North Carolina. But more than three anywhere is unnecessary baggage from a business standpoint. The merger of the Big 12 and SEC yields 5 Texas schools.

Tell the PAC the B12 is gone, one way or another, and that TTU, TCU, OSU, KSU are available. If they bite, then you are down to 3 Texas schools, 1 KS and 1 OK school, and a 20 school conference. I know the PAC wants Texas badly, but if Texas is off the board I think they take a couple, TTU and TCU, it gets them into the Texas market which they covet. OSU and KSU would be harder sells due to academics, but no other realistic western expansion options are that exceptional either. If they do not take them, the SEC just adds two of ECU/UCF/USF/Cincinnati (need a second FL school if you are that large IMO and addresses your later FL point) to get to 24. Or just take 8 (still kills the B12) and add 2 again. I'd drop KSU (doubling up in KS is bad) and TCU in that case.

Eventually the networks are going to switch models on us. We will move from a market footprint model which cable carriage supports to a saturation model which a la carte or streaming will bring about. When we do make that move the SEC will have been remiss in not having more Florida schools and Texas schools. But even then Wake Forest will not make enough of an impact to be worth the ACC having 4 in North Carolina, or the Big 12 having 40% of their entire conference in Texas and 60% in the two states of Texas and Oklahoma. Add Kansas and 80% of their schools are from 3 states. No conference can exist with that kind of concentration. They of all conferences need footprint size, or merger, or dissolution. The ACC needs to simply energize its existing markets, but that remains an unresolved issue because of product in football.

An ACC/B12 merger fixes these issues, especially if they let some schools go to the other 3 power conferences while keeping Texas, OU, FSU, and ND (4 conferences likely means champs only and ND will join a conference if that happens) in the fold, and a bonus if UNC and KU stay as well. The B12 has the quality FB the ACC needs and the ACC has the large footprint the B12 needs. It would be paid right there with the SEC and B1G and have some great FB and BB. Win/win for both conferences, especially if most, or all, of the schools find homes in power conferences. It's why I think there is a good chance of a ND/Texas conference happening towards the end of the GoR around 2023 or so, if conferences are not consolidated before then.

(11-18-2014 10:50 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 02:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  You want models?
Realignment could be over with one move.........one. Then we are done except for the butt-hurt of those that have to move (back).

The 4 conference model:
The SEC absorbs the Big 12. The entire Big 12, but continues to market under two different names (regionalism sells).

SEC #1
LSU
Miss. State
Alabama
Vandy
Tennessee
Kentucky

SEC #2
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ole Miss
Kentucky

Big 12 North
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri

Big 12 South
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Texas A & M

The LHN becomes the Big 12 network and is marketed along side of the SECN as a package.
The PAC remains the same
The B1G remains the same
The ACC remains the same

One move BOOM!

Nah! Too many Texas schools.

You missed the most important part.....REGIONALISM SELLS!!

No I didn't miss it. It does sell. But Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech actually cover the state quite well. I like Baylor, and have nothing against T.C.U., but 3 Texas State schools is enough schools with which to split the revenue. I feel the same way about North Carolina. North Carolina, N.C. State and Duke are plenty. One reason the Big 12 and ACC are in the positions that they are is because of too much concentration within their regions. Two schools per state is considered a stretch, but one that I actually like for the purposes of market saturation. Three is a push anywhere in the Southeast except Texas (really Southwest), Florida, and North Carolina. But more than three anywhere is unnecessary baggage from a business standpoint. The merger of the Big 12 and SEC yields 5 Texas schools.

Tell the PAC the B12 is gone, one way or another, and that TTU, TCU, OSU, KSU are available. If they bite, then you are down to 3 Texas schools, 1 KS and 1 OK school, and a 20 school conference. I know the PAC wants Texas badly, but if Texas is off the board I think they take a couple, TTU and TCU, it gets them into the Texas market which they covet. OSU and KSU would be harder sells due to academics, but no other realistic western expansion options are that exceptional either. If they do not take them, the SEC just adds two of ECU/UCF/USF/Cincinnati (need a second FL school if you are that large IMO and addresses your later FL point) to get to 24. Or just take 8 (still kills the B12) and add 2 again. I'd drop KSU (doubling up in KS is bad) and TCU in that case.

Eventually the networks are going to switch models on us. We will move from a market footprint model which cable carriage supports to a saturation model which a la carte or streaming will bring about. When we do make that move the SEC will have been remiss in not having more Florida schools and Texas schools. But even then Wake Forest will not make enough of an impact to be worth the ACC having 4 in North Carolina, or the Big 12 having 40% of their entire conference in Texas and 60% in the two states of Texas and Oklahoma. Add Kansas and 80% of their schools are from 3 states. No conference can exist with that kind of concentration. They of all conferences need footprint size, or merger, or dissolution. The ACC needs to simply energize its existing markets, but that remains an unresolved issue because of product in football.

An ACC/B12 merger fixes these issues, especially if they let some schools go to the other 3 power conferences while keeping Texas, OU, FSU, and ND (4 conferences likely means champs only and ND will join a conference if that happens) in the fold, and a bonus if UNC and KU stay as well. The B12 has the quality FB the ACC needs and the ACC has the large footprint the B12 needs. It would be paid right there with the SEC and B1G and have some great FB and BB. Win/win for both conferences, especially if most, or all, of the schools find homes in power conferences. It's why I think there is a good chance of a ND/Texas conference happening towards the end of the GoR around 2023 or so, if conferences are not consolidated before then.

Yep, I covered that scenario before. The limitation to its fruition is too many moving parts. A simple dismissing of the GOR for all schools except the top brands would allow the SEC, PAC and perhaps the Big 10 to take product that a combined ACC / Big 12 doesn't need. Once that happens then the formation might take place without obstacles.

For instance should the SEC take Oklahoma State, Miami, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to move to 18 (a number better suited for this move) then I doubt they would care as much if the ACC merged with the Big 12 remainders. Especially if Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and perhaps Rice have moved to the PAC. Iowa State, Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma along with West Virginia would then be free to join with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Florida State to form 15 of the the 18 school Big 12.
Add Cincinnati, Brigham Young, and Colorado State and you have a helluva conference. Tulane is there along with U.C.F. if you want 20.

It even works at 16. The PAC takes OSU, KSU, TTU, and TCU, the SEC takes Virginia Tech and N.C. State, the Big 10 takes Syracuse and Boston College. The Big 12 takes Pittsburgh, Louisville, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami and Notre Dame to go with Baylor, Texas, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

That's a much tighter set of conferences without taking schools that may or may not pay their way.

Now of course we move to the three conference model.......not the 3 X 20, but a real three conference model where nobody gets left out.
Now that the Big 12 has been successfully merged into the SEC, it's time to merge the B1G and the ACC into one 29 team conference marketed in three different entities.

The ACC division
UVa
Virginia Tech
Carolina
Dook
State
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

The eastern division
Miami
Maryland
Louisville
Penn State
Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College
Rutgers
Notre Dame

The Mid-west division
Nebraska
Iowa
Minn.
Wisc.
Northwestern
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio State
MSU
Mich.
Purdue

The problem with further consolidation is that there is going to be a lack of balance in certain leagues going forward.

For example: Part of what makes OU so valuable in conference realignment is the fact that they WIN - and a lot. If OU falters to a perennial 7-5 team, then the ratings and in-seat attendance will both drop - and fast. That will nullify the VALUE in adding OU.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that OU are worth, say, 45 million a year PROVIDED THAT THEY WIN AT A 75% CLIP. You begin to lose out on the deal if the overly-stacked conference piles on the losses and damages the brand.

I would suggest that the SEC is careful about what they wish for.

(11-19-2014 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with further consolidation is that there is going to be a lack of balance in certain leagues going forward.

For example: Part of what makes OU so valuable in conference realignment is the fact that they WIN - and a lot. If OU falters to a perennial 7-5 team, then the ratings and in-seat attendance will both drop - and fast. That will nullify the VALUE in adding OU.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that OU are worth, say, 45 million a year PROVIDED THAT THEY WIN AT A 75% CLIP. You begin to lose out on the deal if the overly-stacked conference piles on the losses and damages the brand.

I would suggest that the SEC is careful about what they wish for.

That's why you add Rutgers and Maryland. You add great universities (academics) in good markets, but still make sure your best teams have a clear path to 10+ wins.

(11-19-2014 03:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with further consolidation is that there is going to be a lack of balance in certain leagues going forward.

For example: Part of what makes OU so valuable in conference realignment is the fact that they WIN - and a lot. If OU falters to a perennial 7-5 team, then the ratings and in-seat attendance will both drop - and fast. That will nullify the VALUE in adding OU.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that OU are worth, say, 45 million a year PROVIDED THAT THEY WIN AT A 75% CLIP. You begin to lose out on the deal if the overly-stacked conference piles on the losses and damages the brand.

I would suggest that the SEC is careful about what they wish for.

That's why you add Rutgers and Maryland. You add great universities (academics) in good markets, but still make sure your best teams have a clear path to 10+ wins.

1. I agree with your assessment of the Big 10 move Ynot.

2. To Olive and Blue: I think we know that already. That's why in a move to sixteen we add a North Carolina and Virginia school. We gain markets, possibly two schools that can help our basketball, but none of them challenge in football regularly. If we pick up two from the West then Oklahoma State and a second Texas school not named UT gets us the markets without upsetting the balance of power. But really who from the ACC upsets the balance of power in the SEC? Florida State adds to it but for most years that just adds a contender, not a balance changer. Clemson adds an occasional contender and a good mid tier team. Only Texas and Oklahoma have the potential to alter the balance of power, but not if you add them to the West and shift Auburn and Alabama to the East. So there are ways around the problem even if you add two powers (which I don't think we will). But if we added three non regular challengers then adding a single challenger with them actually keeps the balance about the same. Let's say we added Oklahoma, Baylor, N.C. State and Virginia Tech in a move to 18, we alter nothing as far as averages go. What makes the SEC so interesting to the national audience is that every year 25% to 30% of our teams could challenge and only 2 or 3 will be the same annually.

(11-19-2014 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with further consolidation is that there is going to be a lack of balance in certain leagues going forward.

For example: Part of what makes OU so valuable in conference realignment is the fact that they WIN - and a lot. If OU falters to a perennial 7-5 team, then the ratings and in-seat attendance will both drop - and fast. That will nullify the VALUE in adding OU.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that OU are worth, say, 45 million a year PROVIDED THAT THEY WIN AT A 75% CLIP. You begin to lose out on the deal if the overly-stacked conference piles on the losses and damages the brand.

I would suggest that the SEC is careful about what they wish for.

That is why the Networks would view The Big Ten as a better place for Oklahoma. The potential loss of putting Oklahoma in the SEC is greater than the potential gain. The opposite is true of adding them to The Big Ten.

(11-19-2014 11:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with further consolidation is that there is going to be a lack of balance in certain leagues going forward.

For example: Part of what makes OU so valuable in conference realignment is the fact that they WIN - and a lot. If OU falters to a perennial 7-5 team, then the ratings and in-seat attendance will both drop - and fast. That will nullify the VALUE in adding OU.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that OU are worth, say, 45 million a year PROVIDED THAT THEY WIN AT A 75% CLIP. You begin to lose out on the deal if the overly-stacked conference piles on the losses and damages the brand.

I would suggest that the SEC is careful about what they wish for.

That is why the Networks would view The Big Ten as a better place for Oklahoma. The potential loss of putting Oklahoma in the SEC is greater than the potential gain. The opposite is true of adding them to The Big Ten.

You are going to create a new league of losers and winners no matter what you do. I think part of the whole scheme has a lot to do with conditioning the public to accept losses.

The power brokers KNOW that the major programs are going to turn into 9-3/8-4 types - so they're trying to calm down the fan base by ranking them based on SOS. The only way they can do this is by devaluing G5 programs. Does that have a cost? Yes. Is it the cheapest cost that they can pay? Yes.

The "new mode of operation" is still under construction. It's going to be a hot mess across all of the FBS for the next 5 years.

I still don't understand why the networks want to create superconferences. 8 smaller leagues of 10ish teams would be better for fan travel, provide closer ties between schools, and still allow for the networks to get each entity to cooperate with one another.

The networks are paying more than what they really need to for their product, and it's put them in a really bad pinch as a result.

(11-20-2014 10:22 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 11:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with further consolidation is that there is going to be a lack of balance in certain leagues going forward.

For example: Part of what makes OU so valuable in conference realignment is the fact that they WIN - and a lot. If OU falters to a perennial 7-5 team, then the ratings and in-seat attendance will both drop - and fast. That will nullify the VALUE in adding OU.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that OU are worth, say, 45 million a year PROVIDED THAT THEY WIN AT A 75% CLIP. You begin to lose out on the deal if the overly-stacked conference piles on the losses and damages the brand.

I would suggest that the SEC is careful about what they wish for.

That is why the Networks would view The Big Ten as a better place for Oklahoma. The potential loss of putting Oklahoma in the SEC is greater than the potential gain. The opposite is true of adding them to The Big Ten.

You are going to create a new league of losers and winners no matter what you do. I think part of the whole scheme has a lot to do with conditioning the public to accept losses.

The power brokers KNOW that the major programs are going to turn into 9-3/8-4 types - so they're trying to calm down the fan base by ranking them based on SOS. The only way they can do this is by devaluing G5 programs. Does that have a cost? Yes. Is it the cheapest cost that they can pay? Yes.

The "new mode of operation" is still under construction. It's going to be a hot mess across all of the FBS for the next 5 years.

I still don't understand why the networks want to create superconferences. 8 smaller leagues of 10ish teams would be better for fan travel, provide closer ties between schools, and still allow for the networks to get each entity to cooperate with one another.

The networks are paying more than what they really need to for their product, and it's put them in a really bad pinch as a result.

Why more super conferences? It is easier to market regionally than two separate conferences would be. 8 conferences inhabit essentially the same regions as 4. It cuts overhead for the networks in half, allows for a greater mix of match ups, and gets a whole region to identify with one brand. It also ties two regions together in interest when borders of conferences share state schools. Should North Carolina and Virginia be shared by the Big 10 and SEC you tie the two largest fan bases into those state rivalries. That's a ratings winner.

But Olive and Blue your assessment of fans attitudes vis a vis wins and losses is accurate. The best way to get them to forget about 10 - 2 is to move to 4 conferences in which the champions play it off. Then astounding won loss records aren't the focal point, conference championships are, and the records become moot because a beauty pageant isn't necessary for the championship round.

I just don't like the idea of forcing people into new associations that they've never had in the past. You are also losing a lot of school identity in the process.

Keep in mind JR that student attendance has been steadily declining over the last few years. Furthermore, fans are becoming disillusioned with skyrocketing ticket prices that are coupled with a dearth of local matchups.

The era of the superconference will generate loads of TV money, but there are some really heavy casualties that will be suffered along the way.

The current CFP ranking is the first AGGRESSIVE suggestion that the field will be cut down to "haves" and "have nots". The commentators have added language to their vocabulary that didn't exist 2 years ago. Not much is left to do in regards to restricting access.

I think the next move will be to improve the nonconference schedule - and I think there will be some unintended "effects" that come as a result of this. The TV networks are not going to pour outrageous sums of money down the toilet just so that a P5 school can have 4 rent-a-win games. I could see a situation in which a power school is limited to ONE non-power opponent per year (and those schools will be "historic" opponents against G5 teams - think Tulane vs. Syracuse/Duke/GT, Colorado vs. CSU, ECU vs. VT).

I could see LSU with a schedule like this:

vs. Louisiana-Lafayette (G5, regional)
@ Clemson (ACC)
vs. UCLA (PAC)
@ Wisconsin (B1G)
<5 home SEC dates>
<4 away SEC dates>
+ SEC Title Game (if applicable)
+ Bowl Game

That's an impressive level of content from a TV perspective. The issue will be getting people to watch bottom-tier P5 programs - but that's an issue that I THINK the TV networks will tolerate for now.

I will explain this counterpoint by showing you what Illinois will have to suffer:

vs. N. Illinois (G5, regional)
@ Missouri (SEC)
vs. Arizona
vs. Virginia Tech
<4 B1G home dates>
<5 B1G away dates>
+ B1G Title Game (if applicable)
+ Bowl Game (if applicable)

They would have the same shot at a national championship as Tulane.

(It is very hard for an alumnus of a G5 program to type this - but this is reality, and there are a few schools that have it harder than Tulane so I guess I should not complain.)

(11-20-2014 12:03 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I just don't like the idea of forcing people into new associations that they've never had in the past. You are also losing a lot of school identity in the process.

Keep in mind JR that student attendance has been steadily declining over the last few years. Furthermore, fans are becoming disillusioned with skyrocketing ticket prices that are coupled with a dearth of local matchups.

The era of the superconference will generate loads of TV money, but there are some really heavy casualties that will be suffered along the way.

The current CFP ranking is the first AGGRESSIVE suggestion that the field will be cut down to "haves" and "have nots". The commentators have added language to their vocabulary that didn't exist 2 years ago. Not much is left to do in regards to restricting access.

I think the next move will be to improve the nonconference schedule - and I think there will be some unintended "effects" that come as a result of this. The TV networks are not going to pour outrageous sums of money down the toilet just so that a P5 school can have 4 rent-a-win games. I could see a situation in which a power school is limited to ONE non-power opponent per year (and those schools will be "historic" opponents against G5 teams - think Tulane vs. Syracuse/Duke/GT, Colorado vs. CSU, ECU vs. VT).

I could see LSU with a schedule like this:

vs. Louisiana-Lafayette (G5, regional)
@ Clemson (ACC)
vs. UCLA (PAC)
@ Wisconsin (B1G)
<5 home SEC dates>
<4 away SEC dates>
+ SEC Title Game (if applicable)
+ Bowl Game

That's an impressive level of content from a TV perspective. The issue will be getting people to watch bottom-tier P5 programs - but that's an issue that I THINK the TV networks will tolerate for now.

I will explain this counterpoint by showing you what Illinois will have to suffer:

vs. N. Illinois (G5, regional)
@ Missouri (SEC)
vs. Arizona
vs. Virginia Tech
<4 B1G home dates>
<5 B1G away dates>
+ B1G Title Game (if applicable)
+ Bowl Game (if applicable)

They would have the same shot at a national championship as Tulane.

(It is very hard for an alumnus of a G5 program to type this - but this is reality, and there are a few schools that have it harder than Tulane so I guess I should not complain.)

Again most of your assessment is correct. I foresee a move to 10 P5 games and eventually all 12 with the only non P5 opponent being a mid August pre season game sold in the ticket package as every P5 school's 7th home game and replacing the Spring scrimmage game.

TV does love content and as I said in the previous post the need to be 10 - 2 will be gone. Being conference champion will be the primary objective...again, as it was several decades ago. If the ACC's North merges into the Big 10 that becomes basically a merger of the Old Big East and Big 10 which 70 years ago played more games against each other and if the South ACC merges with the SEC that is a recreation of the Old Southern Conference which existed until the late 30's. So I don't necessarily see the moves as forced unions as much as reunification. And the dates are important. Prior to WWII these were the majority of the football playing schools. The GI bill and the babies of the Baby Boom floated higher education for almost 3 generations in this country. Most of these G5 schools were teacher colleges or smaller, or non existent prior to the big education bubble. That bubble has passed and what you see and call realignment is really higher educational downsizing, especially in light of automation and outsourcing and it is a lagging move behind the trends that created it so it wasn't even hard to predict. I did so here on this board almost 3 years ago. Furthermore it is the collapsing tax bases across the nation that are driving this change now and it is the government bureaucracy that has caused this move to be tardy for over a decade. It really has more to do with our changing economy than with football. TV just needed a cheap substitute for program production and sports fits the bill. The colleges needed new revenue and voila we have realignment.

The only place where you are wrong is in fan assessment. They will continue to watch because there is no substitute and the games will get more massive. Much in the same way gladiatorial games got much more massive in scope and gore as Rome declined. It's a distraction for the public away from more dire issues.

There are almost 8 billion people on the planet now. Outside of a few disciplines most are obsolete as a labor force. Let that sink in. We are headed into a future where only the top 5% of the population will need to receive research PHD's. Only about another 15% will need other kinds of PHD's for business and management and infrastructure, and instruction purposes. So for the world we only need to educate 1.5 Billion of its masses in total for what represents 2 generations of workers. As any things that peaks the value of human labor is headed down.

It's a great thing that Tulane is stepping up its sports again. I'd love to see them in a P5. College ball is being invested in for another reason. Corporations for 30 years have been attaching their brand logos to college campuses. Professional sports will be on the way out in this country. Salaries are just disproportionately high. Those in the know are already hedging their bets on college sports because of the cheap overhead, and even with stipends relatively low pay involved. They have essentially captured the entertainment industry they want and it is not the NBA, NFL, and MLB. The NFL saw this coming and monetized itself. In the next half century we will watch the decline of professional sports, but the college sports bubble has only begun, but taking into account the issues downsizing higher education those behind the move to push college athletics are using the economic environment to drive their move and to start with those schools they know will not be affected. It's good for long term public morale and good for business.

(11-20-2014 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Professional sports will be on the way out in this country. Salaries are just disproportionately high. Those in the know are already hedging their bets on college sports because of the cheap overhead, and even with stipends relatively low pay involved. They have essentially captured the entertainment industry they want and it is not the NBA, NFL, and MLB. The NFL saw this coming and monetized itself. In the next half century we will watch the decline of professional sports, but the college sports bubble has only begun, but taking into account the issues downsizing higher education those behind the move to push college athletics are using the economic environment to drive their move and to start with those schools they know will not be affected. It's good for long term public morale and good for business.

Exhibit A: The Marlins' obscene contract with Giancarlo Stanton. We all know how much the Marlins draw in the regular season.